The top Internet speeds for targeted customers will be reduced for periods lasting 10 minutes to 20 minutes, keeping service to other users flowing, Mitch Bowling, Comcast's senior vice president and general manager of online services, said in an interview yesterday.

The new system will move away from a focus on specific applications that hog Web traffic, Bowling said. Comcast will determine ``in nearly real time'' whether congestion is caused by a heavy user, he said.

``If in fact a person is generating enough packets that they're the ones creating that situation, we will manage that consumer for the overall good of all of our consumers,'' Bowling said.

Comcast has decided to use the new system, which it calls ``fair share,'' and will fine-tune it further before introducing it, Bowling said.

The company is considering whether to charge subscribers more for heavier Internet use, a step announced by some other cable companies, Bowling said.

In trials, Comcast has found the fair share system to be effective if the slowing lasts for ``roughly between, probably, 10 and 20 minutes,'' Bowling said. The user's Internet speed would then return to normal.

``If they continue that, we would have to manage them again,'' Bowling said.

A user being impeded would have Internet speeds equivalent to ``a really good DSL experience,'' Bowling said.

said by Rob :

Will be interesting to watch. If this "fair share" application was developed by Comcast, then I suspect that they will start leasing the application out to other ISPS, like they are doing with Powerboost.

This is the wave of the future folks. Rather than letting the .01% of the customers get kicked off Comcast's network - we all have to suffer now. Shame.

said by EG :

But during those "10-12" hours, am I already being adversely affected on my particular node ?

said by TKJunkMail :


..........(until docsis 3 comes along?)........

said by tshirt :

except docsis3 has nearly the same up/down ratio as 1 & 2 (when you look at other planned services), it does increase total bandwidth available over the same hfc network, we'll just be talking about GB caps vs MB caps
Everyone should get used to the idea "Residental" broadband will have limitations (though few residental type users will hit the wall) anyone doing business or "extreme" user from home will (and should) pay more.

said by tshirt :

Not yet.........maybe not ever, if that's not the service they choose to offer. Instead you pay more by getting a dedicated line for a "exotic" provider (probably one of the old time telco's), stripped of the lower end residental broadband and phoneline service, business customer will shoulder the whole cost of their plant at extreme prices.

said by sturmvogel :

Why then does it get repeated over and over as an obvious choice when it is clearly not ? I wish I had a dollar for every answer that said "get a business account" when describing my Comcastic experience.

said by tshirt :

Because once the alternative,dedicated line w/service level agreement shows it's true cost, some business and heavy users will find a CC "business account" w/a limited service agreement, and maybe some bandwidth limits an acceptable mid priced alternative.

said by EG :

That said, are you certain that this method will be node specific ?

said by TKJunkMail :

The congestion that occurs is at the node level - not at the system level.

said by TKJunkMail :

Am I certain? NO. But it would be the only way the throttling system Comcast's VP announced could work. The congestion that occurs is at the node level - not at the system level.

said by pandora :

Are business users to be throttled also?

said by TKJunkMail :

Who knows? Only when Comcast finishes their trials and announces the finalized policies would we find that out.

I guess it would depend on what kind of business user you are talking about. For example, a home office for say an insurance salesmen in a residential community paying for a business plan may be subject to throttling policies. But a large medical practice in an office building with a Service Level Agreement and with a negotiated contract price probably wouldn't be.

said by TKJunkMail :

Am I certain? NO. But it would be the only way the throttling system Comcast's VP announced could work. The congestion that occurs is at the node level - not at the system level.

said by TKJunkMail :

If there is NO node congestion, then no action would be taken to throttle users on that node.

said by trent25 :

That sounds fair at first look. Why throttle users if no one's experience is being affected by those heavy users as long as they stay below the 250GB cap.

But look at it from another angle. If I am on a node with very few users, I might not get throttled even if I max out my connection for an hour or 2 as long as not every user on my node does the same thing at the same time.
Now consider I am on node with loads of users, during peak hours I'm probably gonna get throttled a few minuted after I start maxing out my connection.

So how is that fair!?!

said by TKJunkMail :

Life isn't fair. Anyone beyond their teenage years learns that unpleasant fact of life.

Representatives of Free Press and Public Knowledge, two digital rights advocacy groups that filed a complaint against Comcast for slowing P-to-P traffic, expressed reservations about Comcast's apparent new direction.

"It's an interesting reflection on the claim that there is a free market for broadband," said Art Brodsky, a spokesman for Public Knowledge. "If there was competition, could you slow down your best customers?"

said by TKJunkMail Brodsky is quite humorous when he characterizes Comcast's heaviest and most abusive bandwidth hogs as Comcast's BEST customers. Those customers are the absolutely WORST customers. They use the most services; pay the least possible; and complain non-stop whenever their hoggish ways are questioned.
[/BQUOTE :

You can only use the amount of bandwidth your paying for, no more. Right after AT&T moved into our city, Comcast immediatly offered 6mb bandwidth at no extra cost.

So thats what I PAY for.

said by beerbum :

hey those .01% are paying customers.. why not try to keep them!

said by fishmaster :

As far as my experience has been going. I must be getting the brunt end of the deal even tho I am not a heavy user. I just posted yesterday on me Comcast review, 'Appears the evening 'Protocol Agnostic' throttling has kicked in.'

said by upset :

if everyone sat down to their computers, there should be enough bandwidth built into that neighborhood to support capacity.

said by joepublic :

Why..? Comcast hasn't been in my back yard since 1981 when I got cable.

said by espaeth :

If they built it out to that level of capacity the overwhelming majority of folks would never be able to afford it, and the network would sit 90% idle.

said by jlivingood :

As I posted in a related thread - this may help inform the discussion (particularly the PDF below):
Folks interested in this topic may want to check out »www.comcast.net/networkmanagement/ (now and on an on-going basis for updates). One of the downloads at »downloads.comcast.net/docs/Comca···0528.pdf is also informative.

JL

said by TKJunkMail :

All good links. If people here in the forum take the time to read them, many of their questions on throttling will be answered.

said by jlivingood :

One of the downloads at »downloads.comcast.net/docs/Comca···0528.pdf is also informative.

said by gabeman :

I wonder how this will affect those of us who subscribe to Blast. What is the point of paying all of that money for extra speed? To get to the throttle point quicker?

said by thesaucier :

they should be notified that they are or about to be throttled.